About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNNW 11
FOXNEWS 11
CNN 8
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
KGO (ABC) 3
WJLA (ABC) 3
CNBC 2
WMAR (ABC) 2
FBC 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 68
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 68 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. consulate in benghazi and said if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> well, first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. a
, therefore, not in the much talked about talking points that susan rice and others refer to publicly where there was a lot more focus on the potential for a spontaneous demonstration, the video, that kind of thing. that the piece of this puzzle that was more clearly known by the intelligence community of the involvement of terror groups was classified. in part that could be argued as a protection required in order to try to pursue them, that kind of thing. that is new information today, and it helps to show us how there might have been two tracks happening all along. the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known. the real question is, if they knew it was terrorism all along, was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved? that's what people see very differently often based on their political point of view. >> yes, and it is based on political point of view. the fact of the matter, the information that susan rice was provided and what she indicated on "meet the press" and other programs, that would have been a part of the de
was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to those talking points and went to an interagency process. so that other elements of the intelligence community as well as input and review by the state department, as well as the department of justice, that eventually made its way to ambassador susan rice. no one commissioner who was the final author of this talking point given to ambassador susan rice, who is on the sunday talk show on september 16 and repeated on multiple occasions that meant david was in response to the anti-islam video and that was a demonstration that had
very critical of u.n. ambassador susan rice. you were critical in tv appearances right after the attack on september 11th. let's listen to that. >> either ambassador rice was deliberately misleading the american people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn't hold that position anymore. >> now, during friday's hearing, david petraeus, and we'll get to other incidents -- other news with david petraeus later, but david petraeus basically said he knew it was a terrorist attack and that those points were taken out of susan rice's talking points. so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right, and they put together talking points, and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television, is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't
were taken out of susan rice's talking points, so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right and they put together talking points and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't in the talking points, what is she supposed to do. >> well, as u.n. ambassador she had access to all the classified information from the state department. she certainly could have gotten a classified briefing and would have sat dowational security council and known that those talking points had been watered down and could have -- she left a clear impression this was a spontaneous demonstration based on the video and as president obama said, don't blame susan rice because she had nothing to do with benghazi then why did they send her out as the rep
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
by the cia and what was ultimately embraced to am bass sore susan rice. what we mean here is there was a review process and an editing process in which the emphasis on extremist groups, al-qaida, an sar al says sharia was deemphasized in the second version used by ambassador rice. at what point did the former cia director believe that this was an act of terrorism or an act of extremists? a s*r member of the committee told fox a sort time ago was what the director laid off was an evolving picture on intel kwrepbs. >> he reinforced the facts -- in the first 24 hours he felt at that point, or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film. he clarified that after -- after more information came in there was not a protest. >> reporter: one lawmaker telling fox after the hearing that he did feel that there were discrepancies between the former cia director's statements today about what he said on september 14th, and the recollection of that lawmaker. let's listen. >> his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that th
not to make susan rice the next secretary of state, calling -- saying that she either willfully or incompetently misled the american public in the handling of the van ghazi matter. >> i would say that their understanding of the constitution and their role in conformations is illustrative of their overall general knowledge. i think this is a very difficult one for the president. he stood up for her in a press conference and said, might you have a problem is with me. he all but seemed to suggest that he would name her secretary of state. even if she is the best candidate, and there are many people would think she is not a, to take on that confirmation fight over the at the same time that you have all of these other things, from the fiscal clift to the middle east crisis, to take that on now is not the most responsible thing to do. >> is susan rice being scapegoats it? >> i did not take from the president's comments that he was necessarily going to nominate her. i did think he was saying to senator mccain and senator gramm, kemosabi and tonto, look, pick on someone your own size. t
some of her biggest critics. ambassador susan rice goes to capitol hill this hour where she will meet with republican lawmakers who have been furious with her initial remarks on libyan terror attack. how will this story go? that is our lead morning. i'm bill hemmer. martha: i'm martha maccallum. about five days after our consulate was attacked on september the 11th we all remember ambassador rice went on all five sunday shows and said the killing of the ambassador and three other americans was actually the result of a spontaneous mob sparking outrage, those comments did, from top gop lawmakers including these three senators, mccain, graham and ayotte. >> don't we all have the responsibility before we go out and talk to the american people on all five sunday morning shows for verifying those facts are true? >> the most basic information about what happened on the night of the attack, and what survivors had to say after the attack is not being provided and we'll talk more about that. bill: so you wonder then whether or not they will get the answers they're looking for. whether or not so
that hearing to rally around susan rice. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state, i think, is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if -- >> and the middle east on the brink. israel and hamas exchanging fire as casualties mount. amid talk of all-out war. >> will continue to exercise this prudence and self-restraint while defending our citizens against terrorism. >> opening round, president obama and congressional leaders kick off talks to avoid the looming fiscal cliff. >> what folks are looking for and i think all of us agree on this, action. they want to see we are focused on them, not focused on our politics here in washington. >> the framework that i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness we put revenue on the table as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. >> i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand that you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of the changing america in the comi
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
meant for the susan rice appearance recentlyally contain the information that there was evidence of al qaeda's elements involved in this attack. but it appears as if those talking points were altered by the white house or somebody close to the white house to remove any reference to al qaeda's involvement in the attacks. we have yet to discover who has changed the talking points to make the president look for favorable and mislead you, by falsely labeling the 9/11 attacks over spontaneous mob over the video. petraeus has no idea what was provided to rice or who was the author of the talking points that she used that, he had no idea she was going on the talk shows until the white house announced it one or two days before. now, the looming question is, in this coverup, who did it? now, earlier, fox's own katherineererridge explained where the talking points went once they left the cia. >> what we are told about the talking points is that it went through an inter-agency review, including the department of justice, the state department, agencies and that at the end of the day you have this
of susan rice? is hurt future in limbo because of libya? two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. d bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. looking back if it wasn't for shriners hospital,. things would just be really, really different. i lost my leg when i was a kid. there was a time when i felt like i wasn't going to be able to walk again... it was a pretty bad accident but shriners showed me who i could be again. they turned my whole life around. hunter's life is one of nearly a million changed by donations from people like you. send your love to the rescue. donate today. reporter: i would like to bring in michael sing who is the washington director for north east policy. we have this breaking news on israel. th
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
susan rice. he does not know who the author of the final version was and these talking points would be uses as the basis for the statements on sunday talk shows on september 16th that this was spontaneous event and linked to the anti-islam video. lawmakers said they wanted to stay very focused on the attack itself and not the former director's personal problems. >> human nature is what it is but the intent going we'll limit the conversation to the events of 9/11 and forward throughout the rest of the, six, eight weeks ensued since the attacks on our consulate. >> reporter: in addition to what's unfolding here on capitol hill fox news separately has confirmed the cia has begun a preliminary investigation into the former director's tenure at the cia. that would include whether any cia assets or materials if you will were used to facilitate this affair or alleged affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, bill. bill: a lot of people look at this on the outside and look at today as a day where you might be able to settle some things but in all honesty how much will be settled after to
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
from u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice who said publicly on five sunday talk shows that the attack was spontaneous and sparked by an anti-muslim film. the director of the national intelligence office says substantial changes were made before those talking points were sent. but the question still remains who made the changes an why and did anyone in the white house know the full unedited version of events which included that link to al-qaeda? tonight, the state department has no comment, neither does the cia. georgia senator johnny isaacsohn is on the foreign relations committee. he says the administration is accountable, he's demanding answers and he's "outfront" tonight. thanks very much for taking the time. as we can report, this is late r reporting here that we have tonight, but the bell jensen community is saying look, we made the changes, we made them. do you believe it? >> well, it's the first i've heard of it, eastern. you got me on a surprise, but i know director clapper very well. i'm not going to question his word, but it's a little late given all the test
again. >> hey, joe. >> you know, susan rice, our u.n. ambassador, has been taking a lot of heat. john mccain, lindsey graham going after her for repeating what the president says was the intel that was available at the time. you're on the committee. can you tell us, was susan rice, from what you know, just repeating what was being told to everybody in washington at the time on what had happened in benghazi? >> well, here's what i think, joe. i think without question, i mean, you know, you've got guys storming a consulate with ak-47s, with rpgs and firing mortars. they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack. there wasn't any question about that. and why the white house didn't come out and say that immediately, i don't know. they tried to soften it somewhat with regard to it was a spontaneous action that stemmed from a protest. there was a question about whether protesters were there. and five days later, susan rice goes on tv and says that not only was it a protest, but it apparently stemmed from this trailer or this movie that had been shown. and very honestly by that point in time
.s. -- united nations ambassador susan rice for the benghazi response. here is what the president said. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> okay. so it took senator john mccain about an hour to make it to the s senate floor to offer a response. >> that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> seems like the testosterone-fueled rhetoric over benghazi is sort of getting out of control. former cia operative bob behr joins us this morning. good morning, bob. >> good morning. >> i want to make it clear to our viewers what lawmakers want to figure out. there are three separate hearings about to take place today. this is what they're trying to figure out. one, why didn't the united states increase security in libya? two, did the obama administration
reporting says he's going to say and we've seen the cia talking points for susan rice,s as well, if he says listen immediately thought radical islamist group, same time there was intelligence that seemed to indicate that the video might have a role would that, would that explain to you what we now know about susan rice's testimony, which has become a big center of all of this, you know, talking certainly about, whether she's going to have a chance to be secretary of state, do does that make her position on "meept the press" five days later make some kind of sense? >> not to me. and everybody will have to judge that on their own. to me it still falls way short. we know, we know the events that happened. those are public, it's in the public domain. and to blame a video, i think, is offensive, not only to our own, you know, constitutional belief in freedom of speech, but just the idea that the administration would go out and blame a video, instead of what really happened, that this was a terrorist attack that killed four americans. so no i don't think it gets anybody off the hook for statement
politically charged controversy is over u.n. ambassador susan rice's comments five days after the attack. why she blamed it on benghazi demonstrations, officials now say didn't even happen. and why she didn't mention terrorist forces? intelligence officials now believe actually targeted the u.s. consulate there. democrats emerge saying the answer was simple, she was using these unclassified cia talking points which omitted mention of extremist elements because it was still classified and could have compromised intelligence sources. >> she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. >> reporter: democrats accuse republicans of unnecessarily assassinating rice's character. >> to select ambassador rice because she used an unclassified talking point, to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. >> reporter: but republicans say the problem is rice freelanced. >> she went beyond that. and she even mentioned that under the leadership of barack obama we have decimat
.n. a.m. bas door susan rice, said or did not say five days after the tragedy when she went on the sunday talk shows. nbc's "meet the press" specifically, and denied there was al qaeda involvement saying the earlier stories that there had been a riot gone wrong is what u.s. intelligence still believed was the case in libya. petraeus testified, according to those who heard his testimony, that the cia, in fact, believed immediately that al qaeda and another terrorist group was involved and wrote for public consumption some bullet points, which included that assumption by the cia. they went to other agencies quickly so they could get out publicly. five days later, rice denied al qaeda involvement. peter king, the republican from new york, said somebody took out the reference to al qaeda, which had been dumbed down, if you will, to the word extremist and then virtually eliminated from this public, nonclassified report. so, bill, the controversy continues. did susan rice say something publicly that she never the cia didn't believe? did she do it because she wanted to do some poli
.n. ambassador susan rice, she made no mention of al qaeda or extremists when she went on nbc's "meet the press" five days after the attack. rice did tout the anti-terrorist accomplishments of president obama. pet rae ugs denies any political pressure on the cia to scrub al qaeda from its talking points. new york republican peter king said today, "we need to find out who did the scrubbing and why." larry, back to you. >> many thanks, steve handelsman, appreciate it. so why has general petraeus done a 180 on benghazi? this is a very serious issue. first he blames the attack on a video. now he's saying it was a terrorist attack and the briefing notes were changed. something doesn't add up. here now is michael rubin, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, and alexis levinson, reporter at the daily quarter. michael, i'll go to you first. peter king himself today, i guess i'll quote this, he said that the testimony petraeus gave today, that they knew immediately it was a terrorist attack, differed with his own briefing to lawmakers on september 14th. sources say that petraeus somehow
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 68 (some duplicates have been removed)